Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | >Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | >| No problem with gcc 4.0. No problem with my no.po file. | > | | The problem is that the no_NO locale has been phased out, | >| and replaced by nb_NO instead, for resons political. | > | >It is possible to dig up any references on this issue? | > | > | | Norwegian document stating the three language codes | to be used in Norway (nb_NO, nn_NO and se_NO), and | instructions to avoid no_NO and replace it with nb_NO everywhere. | Also, references to various RFCs: | http://i18n.skolelinux.no/localekoder.txt | | Announcement about the introduction of nb_NO and | deprecation of no_NO in libc, Nov. 03, 2003: | http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2003-11/msg00031.html | | Dec. 2003, redhat supports both no_NO and nb_NO in the | expected transition period: | http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/2/x86_64/glibc-common-2.3.3-27.x86_64.html
Ok, great thanks. | So, what do I do? | * Both nb.po and no.po - identical? | * Both nb.po and no.po, with no.po including a warning about | deprecated language? (The warning can be included in the | translation string for "Welcome to LyX!" in no.po) | * Rename no.po to nb.po and loose no_NO support, as distros supports | nb anyway? Saves some work. Let's opt for the last one. Someone needs to push forward, why not us. | How about the help document no_Intro.lyx ? | Rename to nb_Intro.lyx, or copy it? rename. (imho) | Keeping support for no_NO is some extra work, although it mostly | consists of keeping copies. which get out of date. What we could have as a help is to discover that no_NO is used and just use nb_NO instead in that case. -- Lgb